Process evaluation definition

Definitive SO Control Process Evaluation Eimestone Double Alkali and Citrate EGD Process, EPA Pub. EPA-600/7-79-177, Aug. 1979. 

Process view definitions are published by one organization (publisher) and they can subsequently be subscribed by other organizations (subscribers). The application of a view definition to a process results in a view instance containing all process elements which are visible according to the (automatic) evaluation of the view definition rules of the subscribed process view. The subgraph, view workspace, and view resource set of a process view exactly contain all process elements which are determined by the view definitions rule set. 

In contrast to the OQ procedures where all parts of the plant and equipment are qualified separately, the PQ procedures qualify the entire plant with respect to the production process. The definition given for PQ is valid for retrospective validation as well as for prospective validation. While carrying out PQ processes, all necessary SOPs (e.g., for the use or cleaning of the plant) should be approved. Values of critical and noncritical process parameters recorded during PQ must be collected to evaluate the efficiency and performance of the plant. 

If the process is well known, having been verified by one or more commercial operating plants, only estimate levels 3 and 4 are necessary. Methods for making capital investments at the first three levels are discussed next. This chapter is concluded with an example of a definitive estimate using the Aspen Icarus Process Evaluator (IPE), which is part of the Aspen Engineering Suite that includes ASPEN PLUS. 

Be prepared to use the Aspen Icarus Process Evaluator (IPE) system provided by Aspen Technology, Inc. to prepare a more definitive estimate of capital cost. 

In the case of composite materials, the application of mechanical fracture principles, and the approaching manner in this field evolved from the definition of same parameters, which represent criteria of fracture process evaluation, until to the establish of some precise models of deformation and fracture, in function of the matrix nature (ductile or brittle), filler type (particles or fibres), and, for fibres, their geometry and orientation. 

To distinguish between a review and an audit, some definitions will be provided. A review is a critical examination or evaluation of any operation, procedure, condition, event, or equipment item. Reviews can take many forms and be identified as project reviews, design reviews, safety reviews, pre-start-up reviews, and so on. The following discussion of the review process will deal with project reviews associated with capital projects and focus on the area of process safety. 

Before selecting or sizing a specific control device, a careful evaluation of all aspects of the process and contaminants must be made. Improper terminology can lead to poor design and/or operation of any type of device. A list of contaminant definitions in accordance with the USA Standards Institute includes the following. 

Appropriate spacing of unit operations within a process and appropriate spacing of a process from other processes, from employees nonessential to day-to-day process operation, and from the public is inherently safer. A definition of appropriate spacing would assist in evaluating the process location alternatives. This definition may take the form of a table of distances as a function of the type of hazard, inventory quantity and other factors. 

Elazard evaluation or the definition of the effects that may occur, including dose-response characteristics and other intrusive processes. 

The flow of compressible and non-compressible liquids, gases, vapors, suspensions, slurries and many other fluid systems has received sufficient study to allow definite evaluation of conditions for a variety of process situations for Newtonian fluids. For the non-Newtonian fluids, considerable data is available. However, its correlation is not as broad in application, due to the significant influence of physical and rheological properties. This presentation is limited to Newtonian systems, except where noted. 

If, in the same way, we use (72) to define for the other processes the characteristic units J, L, and Y, similar remarks can be made with regard to J and J, with regard to L and L, and likewise with regard to Y and Y. By equation (72) a precise definition has been given to the characteristic unit of any process and we must hope that in the future the study of ionic solutions will eventually provide a complete interpretation of these quantities. At the present time we are very far from this goal. At any rate the total unitary quantity for each process must be isolated and evaluated before it can be interpreted. In the remaining chapters of this book we shall have occasion to mention only the quantities D, L, Y, J, and U, defined in accordance with (72) and (73). If, however, anyone should wish to give a precise definition to a quantity that includes less than the whole of the unitary term, the symbols in bold-faced type remain available for this purpose. 

They point out that at the heart of technical simulation there must be unreality otherwise, there would not be need for simulation. The essence of the subject linder study may be represented by a model of it that serves a certain purpose, e.g., the use of a wind tunnel to simulate conditions to which an aircraft may be subjected. One uses the Monte Carlo method to study an artificial stochastic model of a physical or mathematical process, e.g., evaluating a definite integral by probability methods (using random numbers) using the graph of the function as an aid. 

---